SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 897

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA
Udai Singh – Appellant
Versus
Prem Pal – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance and possession of the suit property, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below were in patent error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff as they failed to appreciate that plaintiff had duly proved his readiness and willingness to execute the contract. It is submitted that this is proven from the fact that appellant had admittedly served legal notice dated 01.09.2011 Ex.PW6/C and legal notice dated 07.03.2014 Ex.PW6/A to the respondents. Yet, defendants did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed. It is only in this circumstance that the plaintiff was left with no other option to file the present Civil Suit. However, the learned Courts below have erroneously construed it to mean that plaintiff had failed to prove the readiness and willingness. It is submitted that the very fact that the appellant had served above said legal notices alongwith receipts are more than enough to prove the readin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top